Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Clause 24

Research

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am delighted to serve under your stewardship once again, Mr. Gale. For the benefit of members of the Committee, I will explain the purpose of the clause. As we have discussed in previous sittings, and as was discussed at length in the other place, science and evidence more widely will be important to the Marine Management Organisation. In recognition of that importance, clause 2 puts the MMO under a duty to take into account all relevant facts and matters when making decisions, including scientific evidence, evidence relating to the social, environmental and economic elements of sustainable development and any other facts and matters that the MMO considers appropriate. To ensure that the MMO has access to scientific advice, it will be required to appoint a chief scientific adviser and establish a science advisory committee. It is worth putting that on the record once again, and I hope that members of the Committee are happy with that explanation for the purpose behind clause 24 and for the changes that have been made in the other place to strengthen it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Power to charge for services

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew George: I wish briefly to ask the Minister for some clarification, or at least reassurance, on the charges that might be applied, particularly with regard to clauses 25 and 26. Subsection (1) of clause 27 refers to the reasonableness of the charges, but it would be helpful if the Minister were to clarify how those who will be charged by the MMO will be reassured that those charges are reasonable, how they will be set and the basis on which they can be tested and challenged if considered unreasonable by those on whom they are imposed.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentlemans query and offer some reassurance. As he knows, clause 27 will enable the MMO to make a reasonable charge for any services it provides on a cost recovery basis, so subsection (2) makes specific provision for it to charge fees for any functions it might be requested to exercise on behalf of a Welsh Minister or the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland. Examples of other types of service for which the MMO might charge include making available the results of research, and providing advice, assistance or training facilities.
Charges will be based on the Governments principles of cost recovery, as I mentioned, and proportionality, and will be linked to the cost of providing any particular service. Licence fees will vary according to a scale depending on the nature and size of the activity undertaken, so it is right to consider the issue of proportionality, which the hon. Gentleman raised. We see that as the way that the system would work. In that way, smaller enterprises carrying on small-scale activities are likely to be subject to lower fees than the larger-scale operations carried out by bigger businesses. It should be noted that the power to charge for the licences will flow from an order under part 4, rather than from clause 27. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I reassure him that there will be a scaled approach to the charges, which recognises the different scales of businesses and of activities that could be undertaken. I hope that how the charges will work is now clearer to him, and that he can take back assurances to those who raised the matter with him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 28 to 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 40 to 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Exclusive economic zone and Welsh zone: consequential amendments

Huw Irranca-Davies: I beg to move amendment 22, in schedule 4, page 236, leave out from beginning of line 35 to end of line 8 on page 237.

This amendment would delete paragraphs 6 to 8 (amending the Fishery Limits Act 1976). These provisions are redundant following a decision to deal with the issue in the transfer of functions order that will be made to transfer fisheries functions in the Welsh zone to Welsh Ministers.
I am glad to set the scene. Part 2 of the Bill defines various areas to be set up, including an exclusive economic zone under clause 41. That will allow the UK to assert its rights and assume its obligations under the 1982 United Nations convention on the law of the sea and will remove inconsistencies in the current maritime zones that we claim. Areas within the British fishery limits, the renewable energy zone, the pollution zone, and the gas importation and storage zone will be replaced by the one EEZ, simplifying the UKs management of the offshore areas and bringing the UK into line with accepted international best practice.
Clause 42 introduces the UK marine area, which defines the geographic area referred to in the Bill for the purposes of managing our waters. It defines the UK marine area in relation to the existing territorial waters 0 to 12 nautical milesand offshore from 12 to 200 nautical miles, or to where the UK enjoys sovereignty. The Bill also makes it clear how the marine works in relation to tidal action, locks and harbour basins.
Clause 43 introduces a new Welsh fisheries zone, which will encompass the territorial sea adjacent to Wales, and offshore waters from 12 nautical miles to the median line. An Order in Council will set up the zone and define the precise boundaries, which will allow fisheries management functions to be carried out seaward of the territorial waters, and will provide for simplified management. That brings Wales into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland for fisheries management.
Amendment 22 is a simple, minor, technical amendment, the purpose of which is to remove provisions amending the Fishery Limits Act 1976 to take account of the creation of the Welsh zone. Those provisions are no longer necessary, as the required changes will be achieved by a transfer of functions order, which is to be made under clause 43, transferring fisheries functions in the Welsh zone to Welsh Ministers.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 149

Establishment of inshore fisheries and conservation districts

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Part 6 will replace the sea fisheries committees with new bodies in England called inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, which will have a duty to manage sea fisheries sustainably, balancing socio-economic benefits with protection of the marine environment. They will have more money and strengthened powers, but will keep local involvement in decision making. IFCAs will be very different organisations from the sea fisheries committees that they replace. Significantly, IFCAs will have a new duty to protect the marine environment and to promote its recovery from the effects of sea fisheries exploitation. In view of discussion in the other place, we have added a duty in clause 153, which states that IFCAs must take the steps that they consider necessary to contribute to achieving sustainable development.

Charles Walker: I do not mean to catch the Minister out, but is he suggesting that our inshore waters are currently subject to unsustainable and damaging levels of exploitation?

Huw Irranca-Davies: No. That is a generalised and blanket statement that is sometimes heard, but it is inaccurate and wrong. The transition from sea fisheries committees to IFCAs will strengthen the role of those authorities to take account of sustainable exploitation. All hon. Members want to see the sustainable exploitation of our seas. That is what the IFCAs are designed to achieve and that is the purpose of my introductory remarks.

Martin Salter: The Minister will recall that on Second Reading other hon. Members and I raised the concerns of recreational sea anglers regarding the composition of the current sea fisheries committees, which were heavily biased towards the commercial sector. What assurances can he give the Committee that recreational sea angling, and environmental interests in general, will have stronger representation on the new IFCAs?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I confirm that it would be appropriate in many, if not all, instances to have sea fisheries interests represented on IFCAs because of the way in which they are integral to the management of the marine and fisheries environment in their areas. The Bill certainly allows for that, so I am very pleased to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Martin Salter: Can I invite the Minister to correct himself? Did he not mean that it would be appropriate to have recreational sea anglers represented on IFCAs?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The correction is absolutely right; my apologies for that.
In terms of membership, there will be statutory seats on each IFCA for the Environment Agency, Natural England and the MMO. Around a third of seats will be allocated to single and upper-tier local authority members. The balance will be appointed by the MMO, and members with fisheries and marine environmental expertise will make up the balance. The MMO will be given guidance on appointments to ensure that the membership of IFCAs fully enables them to deliver their new duties. Funding arrangements will be strengthened.

Andrew George: The Minister has just touched on the question of membership. He will be well aware that that is an issue of great sensitivity and potential controversy, because even within the fishing industry there is not a single view or single interest. Therefore, the MMO will have to discharge its duties in regard to the selection of those representatives from the industry with a great deal of care to ensure that those conflicting interests are properly reflected. He must acknowledge that that is going to be extremely difficult to achieve in many areas.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Many aspects of the Bill, including the composition of the IFCA committees, are predicated on the idea of bringing together people whose interests are sometimes compatible and sometimes conflicting. That is always going to be challenging; I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it will be a challenge and that the MMO has to take great care to make sure that things are right. The make-up of the IFCA committees and how they carry out their duties has a lot to doI will come on to this in a momentwith local accountability and making sure that wide interests are represented, as well as the interests of local authorities.

Martin Salter: Another issue that has been raised by environmental groups and, again, by recreational sea anglers is the presence on IFCAs of local authority representatives who also have an interest in commercial sea fishing activity. Where local authority reps or other representatives on IFCAs have other interests that may be pertinent, will they be declared? We do not want to end up with an imbalance as a result of people wearing two hats.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend has made an important point. Those who are appointed to, or find themselves on, an IFCA will have to subscribe to the overarching purposes and duties enshrined in the Bill. Although they will represent the sector and interests that they come from, they will also have to comply with duties such as ensuring sustainable exploitation of fisheries and not jeopardising or compromising, for example, the remits of marine conservation zones in their area. Future supplementary guidance will make it clear that interests that would normally be declared in debate are declared in such circumstances. I confirm that in constructing that guidance now, we are clear that they will have to declare those interests.

Richard Benyon: Some sea fisheries committees have been more successful than others, which is an understatement in certain cases. Where an IFCA is deemed to be failing in its dutiesthat possibly draws in points raised by hon. Members earlier about the constitution of those committees, but, more importantly, it relates to the delivery of functionswhat power will the Secretary of State have to intervene?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is right that SFCs come in all shapes and sizes and, at least anecdotally, achieve different levels of performance There is a duty on IFCAs to report on their performance to the Secretary of State, which is a great step forward in accountability. I will return in a moment to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised about what action could be taken in response to an underperforming IFCA that is not complying properly with the duties set out here.
I have discussed funding arrangements, which will be strengthened by ensuring that all single and upper-tier local authorities with a coastline contribute to the funding of their local IFCA. Constituent local authorities will receive an additional £5 million a year to support IFCA funding to account for the new financial burden. IFCA boundaries will be set in secondary legislation. Our clear policy intent is to set the IFCAs seaward boundaries at six nautical miles, as SFC boundaries are now. That is because between six to 12 nautical miles there are access rights for certain member states, which are set out in the common fisheries policy. These rights reflect historic fishing activity in the six-to-12 nautical miles zones of individual member states. In clause 149(2)(b), however, the wording the English inshore region, which is defined in clause 316 as the English territorial sea, means that it is possible to extend IFCAs seaward jurisdiction to a maximum of 12 nautical miles. That future-proofing in the Bill provides the flexibility to take into account changes that may occur from reform of the CFP. In Wales, Welsh Ministers will be responsible for inshore sea fisheries management.

Andrew George: To be clear on boundaries and the future-proofing of the legislation, is the Minister saying that that will be at the Secretary of States discretion, or will it require secondary legislation or further regulation to extend the boundary from six to 12 nautical miles?

Huw Irranca-Davies: We have put the power in the Bill. Should we, as part of CFP reform, for example, decide to define more extensively what we mean by the inshore fisheries region in relation to IFCAs, their duties and enforcement, the power exists for the Secretary of State to make that decision in compliance with what we are discussing with European member states at the moment.
Before I turn to the meat of the issue under discussion, I want to clarify that the duty on each IFCA to produce a report on its performance to the Secretary of State, as well as a four-yearly report to Parliament, is a significant step forward. Performance monitoring on that basis is designed to ensure that issues such as that referred to by the hon. Gentleman will be addressed at the earliest possible opportunity. If an IFCA does not do that, we have the option of a judicial review, but the function of reporting to Parliament is now available for the first time, so issues of performance can be challenged and addressed at the earliest possible opportunity.

Roger Williams: The interval of four years between reports seems excessive. Will it be within the Secretary of States discretion for reports to be made on a more regular basis? The state of the fisheries will vary and become endangered in a period of less than four years, so it seems a long time from that perspective.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. The duty is to report at least every four years. It would certainly be possible to require that reporting to happen sooner, not least if something were felt to be amiss in the performance or if there were a failure to carry out duties.

Nick Ainger: The Minister referred earlier to the funding arrangements for IFCAs, and indicated that there will be a levy from local authorities from which IFCAs will receive an additional £5 million. My experience of sea fisheries committees in Wales was that they were insufficiently funded to do what they were required to do or what they would have liked to have done. Are the current funding arrangements sufficient to ensure that IFCAs are able effectively to undertake the same role as sea fisheries committees? Also, is the £5 million sufficient to take care of IFCAs additional responsibilities compared with the sea fisheries committees?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes. To clarify, the funding is sufficient, but the issue will be kept under review. We have a duty to keep any new burdens on local authorities under review. We think that the amount of funding is right and have made an assessment, along with our chief economic adviser, to ensure that the funding accurately reflects the costs. The provision also includes an element that I believe to be around £1.6 millionI will correct myself if I am wrongto ensure that the transition is done correctly.
The IFCAs will be augmentedthey are not simply the old sea fisheries committeesin terms of membership and expertise, which is reflected in the additional £5 million. However, we cannot discard the fact that £6 million comes from the funding of constituent local authorities. The primary difference is that all coastal local authorities in EnglandI will come to Wales laterwill now be required to contribute. Previously, somefor example, Liverpoolchose to opt out of contributing, but all local authorities will now be required to pay a proportionate share towards the funding.
In Wales, as my hon. Friend knows, the powers relating to the funding that is currently generated for sea fisheries committees will be taken on by the Welsh Assembly Government, as desired by their Ministers. The funding that currently goes to local authorities to be transferred to sea fisheries committees will go to the Welsh Assembly Government.
We will keep the issue under review, particularly in relation to any new burdens that might arise, but we are confident that the sums of money that central Government are providing, the transition money and the money being provided by local authorities will be sufficient.

Richard Benyon: In his reply to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, the Minister omitted to point out that IFCAs will be required to produce an annual plan and an annual report, as outlined in clause 173. That report must be made available to the Secretary of State who, if he is worth his weight, will make it available to hon. Members in the usual way. I suspect that if an IFCA is doing its job properly, it will consult a wide variety of interested parties, which should satisfy any concerns about its interim progress between the four-yearly reporting requirement.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The provisions in the Bill undoubtedly strengthen significantly the necessity for a reporting function, so there is the ability to intervene early. Let me return to the decision about the IFCA district boundaries. As the Committee will be aware, we launched a consultation and an impact assessment in January on future options for IFCA district boundaries. That consultation included a number of local authorities that will fall within the proposed districts. The consultation set out two key options: a 10-district model, which would involve relatively minimal change from the current SFC model; and a six-district model, which would involve consolidation and larger districts. The consultation ended on 22 April.
Members of this Committee, as well as stakeholders, are understandably interested to hear my decision on future districts, and I intend to make a formal announcement very soon. At this stage, I can say that I have considered the advice put to me and am minded to go with the 10-district option. However, I would be grateful to hear the views of Committee members before I make a formal announcement.
It will be vital that IFCAs, as the marine fisheries managers in inshore and estuarine waters, play a full role in supporting the implementation of both the water framework directive and the marine strategy framework directive, and they will be bound by the requirements of those directives. Guidance to IFCAs will set out in detail how they will be expected to deliver their new roles. There will be guidance on a range of issues, including how they will be expected to meet their new duties, how they will contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and what role they will play in the implementation of the water framework directive and the marine strategy framework directive. There will be full public consultation on all such guidance, and key stakeholder groups will be involved in the production of guidance at the early stages through their role in IFCA implementation work.

Andrew George: I warmly welcome the announcement that the Minister has just made, particularly about the six-district model. My constituency contains two sea fisheries committeesCornwall and the Isles of Scilly. It is important to keep the integrity of both those sea fisheries separate for good reasons, and they work together very well in any case. Can the Minister reassure me that the 10-district model will maintain not only the integrity and separateness of the Isles of Scilly and Cornwall, but their joint working?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance and welcome his feedback on my announcement. I shall be happy to hear the views of other members of the Committee either now or separately. As I have said, I am minded to maintain the 10-option model, but I will make an announcement on it soon. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we also have to make sure that these work together very effectively.

Nick Ainger: One of the current sea fisheries committee areas is North Western and Wales, which runs from Cardigan in the south right up to north of Fleetwood. How will that be changed? When the Bill comes into force, Welsh Ministers will obviously have responsibility for the Welsh zone. Therefore, the IFCA for the north-west will not cover down to Cardigan, although the current body does. Will the Minister explain what will happen? The current sea fisheries boundary in south Wales touches the north coast of Devon and possibly Somerset. How will the boundaries be agreed?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I can reassure my hon. Friend. Discussions with ministerial colleagues and the Welsh Assembly Government, as well as those at an official level, have confirmed that the necessity for the IFCAs to work together effectively is understood, not least in the area that he described off the north Wales coast where there is a partnership bringing together the sea fisheries. That work includes the options of memorandums of understanding to ensure that the sea fisheries and IFCAs work together, and the same applies in the Bristol channel and elsewhere. The need for close collaboration and for the IFCAs to work together in all areas is imperative, and that is in the Bill.

Nick Ainger: One of the most contentious issues in recent years has been the management of the cockle fishery on the Dee estuary. Obviously, a single sea fisheries committee has covered both sides of the boundary, so that in itself was not a problem, but other incredibly complex issues have arisen. I am concerned that a boundary between the Welsh zone and the north-western zone that runs through the middle of the Dee estuary will make proper management and regulation very difficult. Are there plans to reach an agreement, for example that the IFCA covering the north-west may include the whole of the Dee estuary, rather than it being split in half?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to say that that issue is currently the subject of live and constructive work with the Welsh Assembly Government, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others. My hon. Friend will know that the Dee is managed by the Environment Agency acting as a sea fisheries committee. The agency also acts under a regulating order. The England and Wales boards split the Dee, so we are actively engaged on working with the WAG, DEFRA and others to ensure that fisheries management in the Dee is carried out in a joined-up way. We have not yet worked through all the details of how the Dee will be managed after the Bill has been passed, but that is being addressed with the Welsh Assembly Government as part of detailed implementation planning. We take on board my hon. Friends point and we want to ensure that the new regime works.

Roger Williams: It looks as though the solution whereby Welsh Ministers become the IFCA for Wales will sort out the problem of scallop dredging in Cardigan bay. At one time, that area was part of the North Western and North Wales sea fisheries committee and it was felt that the influence of the north-west was detrimental to the status of Cardigan bay. I am sure that the Minister agrees that the solution being put forward now will, in some ways, solve that difficult problem.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I agree entirely. We have the way forward. I want to repeat to the Committee that the issue around fisheries and border areas between England and Wales, much like those between England and Scotland, requires a number of organisations to work together effectively to manage fisheries. Clearly, Welsh Ministers will have to work closely with all the cross-border and relevant neighbouring agencies including the IFCAs, so such an arrangement will continue under the Welsh Assembly Governments proposed revised fisheries management regime. In fact, my counterpart in the Welsh Assembly Government, Elin Jones, has already made an announcement that signals the clear intention to create memorandums of understanding with the IFCAs that border Wales, the MMO and any other relevant bodies to ensure that fisheries are managed in a joined-up and sustainable way. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. We will build on current practice, but what is in the Bill gives the potential to make that better.
Mr. Gale, may I turn to clause 153, which sets out that IFCAs must carry out their duty in a way that is consistent

Roger Gale: Order. The answer to the Ministers question is no. Even if I stretch my imagination as leniently as possible, we cannot go past clause 152 because an amendment to clause 153 has been selected, but how the Minister chooses to handle affairs is up to him.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Assuming that that was our stand part debate, I am content, at your discretion, Mr. Gale, to move to clause 153 and the amendment.

Roger Gale: Order. There are one or two things that we have to do first.

Andrew George: I want to take the opportunity to welcome the Ministers statement. In an intervention I said that I welcomed the fact that he will make an announcement in a few days time giving detail on the numbers and the designated boundaries of the districts for the IFCAs. That development is welcome, as is this mornings clarification, particularly as it will have a significant impact on our debate on the rest of this part of the Bill. However, he needs to reflect a little more on the interventions made by both me and the hon. Member for Reading, West about IFCA membership. The appointment of representatives by the MMO needs to be handled sensitively. They will not only be local authority representatives, as the hon. Member for Reading, West indicated. They could be enthusiastic recreational sea anglers, for example. Such people would need to declare their interests. They might be members of the local wildlife trust or of a local fishing community. They could be engaged in the fishing industry, or have family members engaged in it. Such interests need to be declarable at the time of appointment to the IFCA.
What has also come out of our debate is that there appear to be conflicts of interest in Wales, not only between fishing activities such as scallop dredging and the interests of the marine environment in Cardigan bay, but within the industry itself. There are often conflicts between fishing activities, such as between powerful boats that can drag heavy fishing tackle over the sea bedin scallop dredging or beam trawling for exampleand other inshore fishing industry activities, such as coastal potting. There are also conflicts between those who set static gear around the inshore areas and those who then cannot trawl either in the mid-water or on the sea bed because of how that static gear has been laid.
All those conflicting interests in the industry, let alone the potential conflicts within the IFCAs themselves, need to be carefully and sensitively handled, and the Ministerand the Secretary of State as well as the MMO in the futuremight need to consider allowing the IFCAs to have a sufficiently large membership to ensure that all those representative interests are properly balanced in the authority.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Gale, for allowing me to respond to an important introduction to a debate on the future of what will be extremely welcome bodies.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 149 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 150 to 152 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 153

Management of inshore fisheries

Andrew George: I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 153, page 103, line 12, at end insert
(ba) seek to further the conservation and recovery of marine flora and fauna in the district,.
I should like to take this opportunity to emphasise that furthering the conservation and recovery of the health of the marine flora and fauna in the district should be clearly spelled out as an objective of an IFCA. Clause 154 is about the protection of marine conservation zones, but not all the inshore waters will be a MCZ, so the purpose of this amendment is to spell out the importance of protecting, through further conservation and recovery, the marine flora and fauna outside MCZs, too.
I have perhaps spoken more than most about the interests of the fishing industry. Although much of the fish that our fishermen catch and bring to our coastal communities is sold to other states in Europe, we still eat a lot of fish in this country and that fish is caught in the sea. Farming fish is a less satisfactory method of producing fish for the marketplace than catching wild fish. Fishermen are often unfairly and inaccurately caricatured as the villains of the sea or the inconsiderate plunderers of the seas resources, and my amendment might appear to be anathema to them. It could be seen as a further step contrary to the interests of fishermen who simply want to help themselves to the marine resource free from any impediment.
On Second Reading, however, I pointed out that the fishing industry itself is keen to ensure that the marine resource is protected. It recognises that it needs sustainable fishing and it has a shared interest in ensuring that fish stocks can recover and that spawning stocks are protected. Fishermen, marine conservationists and marine biologists share an interest in ensuring that these things are properly regulated. Fishermen recognise how the viability of their own business is undermined if they are out there doing precisely the same as their competitors in the sea and going for the last fish in any particular water. It is therefore in their interest that the marine resource is protected, so they are often in favour of measures to achieve that. The closure of the Trevose spring spawning ground on the north coast of Cornwall is an example of an initiative that was proposed and promoted by the fishing industry itself.
I hope that the Minister realises that, rather than having a purely conservationist perspective, the amendment recognises a shared interest between the promotion of marine biodiversity and a sustainable fishing industry.

Huw Irranca-Davies: May I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he introduced this part of the debate? I understand the sentiments behind the amendment, but I hope to be able to explain why it is unnecessary and why, if we accepted it, it might lead to the very imbalance that he has talked about. I will give some clarification and a fair deal of reassurance.
Clause 153 sets out a requirement that IFCAs carry out their key duty in a way that is consistent with sustainable development. As was discussed in the other place, the breakdown of duties set out in the clause includes the pillars of sustainable development, and the need to balance environmental, social and economic drivers. In broad terms, IFCAs key duty requires them to have regard to all aspects of sustainable development in carrying out their functions.
In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Hunt recognised that an explicit reference to sustainable development in the clause would aid consistency and clarity and reinforce the fact that the Government take the sustainable development duty seriously. As such, clause 153(2)(c) places a requirement on IFCAs to take the necessary steps to contribute to sustainable development. We have also made a change to require the Secretary of State to give IFCAs guidance on how they are to make such a contribution.
As my noble Friend Lord Hunt said in the other place, the duty placed on IFCAs in relation to the recovery of marine flora and fauna includes, as outlined in clause 153(2)(b), a duty
to protect the marine environment from, or promote its recovery from
the effects of exploitation when managing sea fisheries resources within their district. The marine environment is defined in clause 181, and includes flora and fauna that are dependent on, or associated with, a marine or coastal environment. As such, the duty already requires IFCAs to promote the recovery of marine flora and fauna. If a habitat has been damaged in the past by fishing, but is still able to recover, the authorities will have to weigh that in the balance when considering appropriate controls on fishermen. The authorities cannot take as a baseline the condition of the district from a certain date and ignore what it was like in the past.
On the duty to further conservation, it is important to note that IFCAs have a specific duty in MCZs, as outlined in clause 154, to ensure that the conservation objectives of MCZs are furthered. That will ensure that those sensitive areas are protected. Additionally, IFCAs, as public authorities, are required by clause 125(2) to exercise their functions in a way that best furthers, or, where that is not possible, least hinders, the conservation objectives of any MCZs in their districts. If they fail to do that, the relevant statutory conservation body can require them to explain why, and could publish that explanation. Where specific actions of IFCAs fail to meet their duty, they can be judicially reviewed.
In other areas, it is fundamental that IFCAs should be required to balance all the different aspects of sustainable development. A requirement to further conservation would unbalance that primary duty, so that conservation would be given undue prominence in relation to sustainable fisheries management. One motivation for adding a duty to further conservation to the Bill is to help drive culture change. There has been a lot of discussion about driving culture change when sea fisheries committees are replaced by IFCAs. Concerns have been expressed that SFCs are too influenced by commercial interests. Our view is that the range of statutory and other changes we are making in replacing SFCs with IFCAs will mean that environmental protection is taken very seriously and becomes embedded in the way in which they operate. I will explain why. Most importantly, IFCAs will have new duties placed on them to balance the protection of the marine environment with the sustainable exploitation of sea fisheries resources. That is a fundamental difference, as SFCs do not have that duty. The Secretary of State will produce guidance for IFCAs on how they are to meet the new duties. There will be full public consultation on that guidance. I know that the hon. Member for Newbury does not like the word but until we get a better one I am going to use itkey stakeholder groups will be involved in the production of that at the early stages through their role in the IFCA implementation work.
There will also be a range of other means to drive cultural change, most notably the restructuring of committee membership to include statutory seats for the Environment Agency, Natural England and the MMO. Other members will be appointed by the MMO and will include people acquainted with the needs and opinions of the local fishing community and those with knowledge of or expertise in marine environmental matters. This includes representation from a range of sectors such as those with interests in environmental issues, recreational fishing and commercial matters. The Secretary of State will produce guidance for the MMO on the appointments process, which will ensure that IFCA membership reflects the needs of the districts and enables them to meet their new duties. Again, there will be full public consultation. Accountability will be ensured by the statutory requirements for IFCAs to produce annual plans, as we have heard, under clause 172 and reports, under clause 173. In addition, the Secretary of State must, as we discussed earlier, submit a four-yearly report to Parliament, as set out in clause 178. I believe that the weight of all those requirements will drive culture change and ensure that IFCAs effectively deliver their new duties, both in MCZs but also across the wider district that they cover.
As Lord Hunt said in the other place, placing an explicit duty on IFCAs to further the conservation of the marine environment outside MCZs would fundamentally alter and unbalance the primary duty to manage the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in a sustainable way. IFCAs are going to have to balance the social and economic benefits of exploiting sea fisheries resources with the need to protect the marine environment. That is consistent with the MMOs position, and is in line with Governments wider commitments to the principles of sustainable development. In the other place, there was recognition of the need for IFCAs, in meeting the general duty, to take into account all aspects of sustainable development. For example, Baroness Carnegy of Lour spoke of the importance of balance when considering the interests of local people and conservation of the environment. Another motivation for change to the clause is to ensure that IFCAs play their part in delivering the requirements of the water framework directive, to which I referred earlier. I hope that gives some clarity.
To conclude, IFCAs new duties in MCZs will require them to further the conservation objectives in those sensitive areas. Elsewhere, IFCAs general duty will ensure the protection of the environment is properly balanced against social and economic considerations. The range of statutory and other changes that we are making in replacing SFCs with IFCAs will ensure they can deliver their new duties. I hope that, with that extensive reassurance, the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for that extensive tour de force on various clauses and his reassurance on the issue. Clause 153(2)(b) deals with the need to promote recovery from
the effects of such exploitation.
That is clearly recovery from fisheries exploitation, whereas the IFCAs may well look at the recovery of marine flora and fauna from impacts other than fishing. On clause 154, as I said a moment ago, that only applies where a MCZ has been designated. The Minister quite rightly emphasises the importance of getting the balance right, perpetually referring to the requirement to further the cause of sustainable development. Having said that, may I refer him to the debate that we had last week, as I remain unhappy about the lack of an adequate definition of sustainable development and the tenets that underlie it?
The Minister argued strongly that there is a wide stakeholder interest, which is welcome and will reassure the hon. Member for Newbury that these people are, as it were, old fishing stakesperhaps that is a more acceptable metaphor to him. In my own area, there is welcome news that the integrity of both Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly will be retained and that, unlike Wales, there will be no bleed-over into bits of England. Unlike the position for the Welsh, the national integrity of Cornwall will not be affected. With the creation of 10 districts, the ability to achieve those outcomes will be much enhanced. On that basis and the reassurances offered by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 153 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 154 to 167 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 168

Provision of services by IFC authorities

Martin Salter: I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 168, page 112, line 16, at end insert
(4) In relation to its area or to a specified part or parts of its area, an IFC authority may enter into an agreement with an eligible body authorising the eligible body to perform any function of the authority.
(5) In this subsection specified means specified in the agreement.
(6) In this subsection eligible body means the Environment Agency or the Marine Management Organisation.
(7) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (4)(c) so as to add any body or description of body to the list, or remove any body or description of body from it..

The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the IFC Authorities are able to delegate powers to the Environment Agency to manage all fish species in upper estuaries.
Issues regarding the exact terms of reference and the boundaries which will apply to the new IFCAs came up extensively in the Joint Committee. There have been strong representations from environmental groups, recreational anglers and the Environment Agency suggesting that the original draft of the Bill got it wrong. It would be difficult to describe something more perverse than the notion of a sea fisheries committeealbeit a revised sea fisheries committee given a new name, a new budget and strengthened with greater representation, but still a sea fisheries authorityhaving jurisdiction on the River Thames from outside the window of this Committee Room up to the tidal limit at Teddington weir. There are no commercial sea fishing interests in Twickenham, Isleworth and Brentfordat least none that I know of, and certainly not when compared with the value of the freshwater fishery, or the millions of pounds generated in the sale of freshwater rod licences. Thousands of recreational anglers, in particular, enjoy fishing the tidal Thames, irrespective of the fact that Thames Water has just committed another act of pollution at Mogden sewage treatment works, which I am sure is something to which we will return.
One can look at other river catchments in the countryfor example, the River Severn in Gloucestershire. The tidal limit of the River Severn goes up to Gloucester. What sea fisheries interest is there in Gloucester? More ridiculouslyperhaps this is something to do with the fact that I am told the country is tilting gradually into the sea towards the eastthe tidal limit of the Trent runs up to Cromwell weir, just outside Nottingham. Do we seriously want our new sea fisheries committees to be primarily worrying about freshwater fisheries miles and miles inland? Of course not. There was clearly an error in the way in which the Bill was put together, and the amendment seeks to address that.
May I read for the record a recommendation from the Joint Committee? As I said in my introductory remarks at the start of the Committee stage, for many of us, that informs our approach to many of the issues in the Bill, which has been well scrutinised. The Joint Committee process was successful and I am surprised that its recommendations did not find their way into the Governments thinking. Recommendation 63 stated:
We believe there is a strong case for the Environment Agency to manage the majority of fisheries in estuaries but we would, in addition, support the establishment of working boundaries between the Environment Agency and IFCAs on a case by case basis in consultation with the relevant estuary or coastal partnership where they exist. In general these boundaries should be based on the upstream limit of commercial fishing interest,
that is an important point
with the Environment Agency managing all fisheries upstream of this boundary (set out in secondary legislation) and migratory fisheries interest below out to six nautical miles. However, the Bill should allow the Environment Agency to retain management of the whole of estuaries where they are already acting as the Sea Fisheries Committee (under cross-warranting procedures) if this is the optimal local arrangement.

Roger Williams: Many of us are concerned about the migratory salmonids, such as salmon and trout. It is often said that the reduction in numbers is to do with commercial fishing outside the estuary as well. If we are to ensure that those populations do not decrease further, there has to be good co-ordination between the IFCAs and the Environment Agency. Will the hon. Gentleman indicate how that will occur?

Martin Salter: Sadly, I am not the Minister, but I can give my view on that important point. The Committee will be aware that fish do not read maps. We can designate IFCAs and boundaries between the Environment Agency and the enhanced sea fisheries committees, but at the end of the day, a migratory fish species will move from saline water up through the estuaries, hopefully, if not over-exploited or poached, into the hon. Gentlemans wonderful constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire. The Environment Agency is already the sea fisheries power out to the 6 nautical mile-limit, and its important role is recognised in the current arrangements, as it has been in previous legislation, as the prime agency with responsibility for migratory fish. Committee members should make no mistake: the economic value of salmon in particular is immense, and is considerably more valuable than commercial fishing interests in many regions of the country.

Richard Benyon: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentlemans amendment and am inclined to support it. Will he clarify it a bit more? I like the idea of a degree of flexibility, and that is precisely what would be required, because some estuarial areas are immense and some are very fine and under intensive management already. What we want to avoid is a turf war, or perhaps a surf war[Laughter.] I apologise, it just came into my head. We want to avoid a turf war between two organisations, which could be to the detriment of the management of fisheries. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on flexibility, but that should not result in conflict between two organisations.

Martin Salter: May I put on the record that that was probably the worst pun of the parliamentary Session?

Roger Gale: Order. No, it was rather good.

Martin Salter: Let us get back to fish, rather than surfing. I thank the hon. Member for Newbury for his support for the principle of the amendment. He is absolutely right. Estuaries do not easily conform to conveniently drawn lines on maps, nor do the fisheries interests. For example, in the Humber estuary, the commercial interest comes a considerable way inland and therefore it would not be, as I initially thought when I looked at the proposal, convenient simply to draw a line parallel with the coast where the estuary meets the sea. That would not work. The way to proceed is on a case-by-case basis, and the amendment seeks to achieve that.
As to how we avoid turf wars, hon. Members should bear in mind that deliberations in Committee effectively inform future judgments. If there is a dispute, counsel and advisers will often go back to our debates to ascertain what Parliament intended. Clearly, what Parliament would wish in this case is to pre-empt any unnecessary turf wars. There will be enough for IFCAs to do without treading on the toes of the Environment Agency, which, by and large, does not do a bad job. It could do with more resources, but with the increase from the sales of fishing rod licences its resources are expanding. It does not do a bad job of managing our freshwater fisheries. I certainly do not want its powers, its influence or, more importantly, its expertise to be limited.
In conclusion, the amendment makes good environmental sense. It also makes good logistical sense. It certainly makes good sense in terms of using the current experience and expertise at our disposal, and it makes eminent sense as regards the management of those fisheries, which are important to both the commercial and the recreational sector.

Charles Walker: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reading, West. He is a great champion of fishing and fishermen. I spend many evenings on riverbanks with him and many days catching the beautiful freshwater fish that swim in our rivers. I share his concern. It would be quite ridiculous for me to fish at Teddington for chub and roach, not bass and mullet, and to see an IFCA fishery officer cruising past me in his boat. Although it is clearly in the tidal reach, Teddington is not a sea fishery. There are lots of pike, carp and exciting fish, but they are not sea fish.
There are issues of overlap that we need to be concerned about, particularly where we have migratory fish runs, but the Environment Agency is responsible for recruitment and breeding in the rivers. It will take a close interest in what is happening to migratory fish stocks in freshwater fisheries, namely rivers. It will know what spawning numbers are required, and what catch rates and release rates are being achieved. It would be mad for the EA to hand over responsibility for the estuary to IFCAs; commercial sea fishermen could net out the salmon and sea trout as they nose into the freshwater, thereby denuding that river of its native stock that leads to sustainable recreational fisheries in the river.
It is not just fishermen who benefit from stocks of salmon and sea trout. It is also local hoteliers, the local tourist trade and, dare I say it, those lovely animals that people like to see in our rivers, otters. Like the hon. Member for Reading, West, I have no time for mink, but I have a lot of time for otters, and sustainable fisheries support healthy otter populations.

Martin Salter: May I counsel the hon. Gentleman? We all enjoy seeing otters in the natural environment, but some of the wildlife trusts that have reintroduced otters into our rivers have done so without regard to the available food source. That is an important issue. There needs to be some balance to ensure that that apex predator does not do untold damage to fisheries.

Charles Walker: The hon. Gentleman makes my point perfectly. The Environment Agency has responsibility, in the main, for our freshwater fisheries. It should be consulted and included in important decisions, and it should have the final say on what happens. If we are to have viable fish populations, we need to ensure that the interests of fish are balanced against the interests of otters. That will always be the case.
I spend a lot time fishing on the Bure in Norwich. I shall be in Norwich in the coming weeks, but not to fish, unfortunately. The Bure is tidal up to Horning, and the idea of IFCA officers patrolling Horning among the pike fishermen is ridiculous. The amendment is good and sensible. We discussed it a year ago in the Joint Committee on the Bill, when we got frightfully excited about it, and now we are frightfully excited about it again. The issue matters to fishermen on both sides of the House. Fishing transcends party politics. It is not quite a religion, but it is very close to being so. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept the amendment in good grace, and ensure that the Government implement the necessary changes so that common sense prevails.

Alan Whitehead: I want briefly to add my support for what is an eminently sensible amendment. Outside the window, in front of the Houses of Parliament, there is a stretch of estuary upon which, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne has intimated, an inshore fisheries vessel could potentially sail back and forth, which would clearly be inappropriate in terms of estuarial fish management. We do not have such long tidal runs in my Southampton constituency, but the Eling Tide Mill and the Wood Mill tidal reaches represent the end of an estuary that would also be inappropriate for inshore fisheries management. A permissive regime that allows negotiations on how management is best undertaken seems a straightforward way to proceed.

Martin Salter: I was remiss in not mentioning the Southampton estuaries, because the combined value of the migratory fish runs of salmon and sea trout in the Test and the Itchen, which flows through the hon. Gentlemans fair city, is worth millionsI cannot remember the correct figureto the local economy. Does he agree that we tamper with the enforcement regime of that valuable resource at our peril?

Alan Whitehead: I agree. I am slightly concerned that I have encouraged my hon. Friend to expatiate further on the joys of fishing and of estuarial fish stocks. While I share hon. Members enthusiasm for inshore fisheries and the management of inshore fish stocks, I must say that the idea of spending seven hours on a riverbank catching nothing whatever does not inspire me to the same degree as others on the Committee.

Charles Walker: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been fishing with us, because we never spend seven hours on the riverbank not catching anything.

Alan Whitehead: As I feared, we are going to get into fish-catching stories.

Roger Gale: No, we are not; we are going to curtail the Wind in the Willows tendency.

Alan Whitehead: I will rapidly proceed to my conclusion. We looked at the matter in some detail during pre-legislative scrutiny, and we came to a straightforward and logical conclusion about how the issues should be managed. The amendment reflects that, and it is important that we move substantially along that route in the final form of the Bill.

Nick Ainger: I will not comment on the sadness of people who get excited about this issue.
My constituency has some of the finest fishing areas in the UKthe Tywi, the Teifi, the Taf and so onand I am appreciative of the huge income that that generates for the local economy. However, rather than talking about migratory sea fish, I want to return to something that the Minister and I discussed earlier. The Dee estuary is an example of where the sea fisheries committee covering an area has delegated its responsibility to the Environment agency. The amendment would confirm that such a working arrangement may operate.
Although hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have made the case well for the importance of migratory fish and the inter-relationship between the Environment Agency, which looks after our rivers and parts of our estuaries, and the role of IFCAs, I am concerned that if the amendment or something similar is not in the Bill, there might be difficulties in managing certain fisheries, such as the cockle fishery in the Dee estuary. I support the principle of the amendment and am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Russell Brown: I should declare at the outset that I am neither a fisherman nor a golfer. I believe that the skills required for both of those sports are far more than I can handle. Apart from anything else, I do not have the patience for them.
I apologise for this, Mr. Gale, but I probably should have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West before he moved the amendment. While I am minded to support it, I am not sure whether it is a probing amendment. Having working relationships and arrangements in place to ensure that we do not end up with inshore fishery vessels up and down stretches of rivers where they are not required is paramount. As I said, I am unsure whether my hon. Friend wishes to do anything more than probe the Minister.

Martin Salter: To reassure my hon. Friend, I will press the amendment to a Division if the Ministers response is not as robust as the Committee hopes that it will be.

Russell Brown: On the basis of that robust statement, I will say nothing further. We will all listen more than a little attentively to what the Minister has to say.

Andrew George: I have attached my name to the amendment and I wish to give the sentiments that underlie it a fair wind. It is clear from the contributions so far that it would be likely that the amendment would be supported if the Committee were to divide. All that I want now is advice on the technical drafting, which I am sure that the Minister will give in any case. I hope that the drafting will pass muster. Certainly, at least allowing an IFCA, if it desired, to delegate in certain circumstances, particularly with regard to estuaries, is a good principle and common sense. The absurdity of the scenarios that the hon. Member for Reading, West outlined in his opening address was very well expressed.

Martin Salter: The hon. Gentleman inspires meit is not often that I am inspired by anyone. Has he given any thought to what would happen if an IFCA decided not to use its delegation, but there was an overpowering environmental case to change the management arrangements and use that delegation? Who would hold the ring in those circumstances?

Andrew George: I am inspired to respondit is not often that I amto the hon. Gentleman. There are sometimes circumstances, particularly at the mouth of an estuary, in which the interests of a sea fisheries committee and those of the Environment Agency are in conflict, or certainly where the bodies do not see eye to eye. There is, in fact, a cross-border issue. I cannot envisage circumstances of the kind that the hon. Gentleman described a long way upstream in an estuary, where an IFCA might not wish to delegate its authority. Having drafted the amendment and served on the Joint Committee, he will perhaps have considered the issues more deeply than I have, but I am aware that there are circumstances in which there has been a possible contradiction, certainly an overlap, and a possible conflict between the objectives of the current sea fisheries committees and what the Environment Agency is trying to do at the mouth of an estuary.

Martin Salter: This might be a get out of jail free card for the Minister, but it occurs to me that there might be a case for redrafting the amendment for consideration on Report to resolve the question of how to deal with a conflict, which I am not sure the amendment as drafted would do as strongly as we would like. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire put forward a good arrangement that would operate by consent, but people are not always reasonable and we do not want to leave the door open for unreasonableness further down the road.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates his reasonableness by being prepared to bring back an amendment on Report after ensuring that it is technically proficient and capable of achieving what I think we all wish to achieve: a common-sense outcome.
Under proposed new subsection (6) in amendment 51, there would be the option of not only a delegation to the Environment Agency, but of a delegation to the MMO, but I cannot envisage the circumstances, particularly in the context of an estuary, in which the MMO, rather than the Environment Agency, would be the preferred body. I perhaps should have intervened on the hon. Gentleman when he was discussing that, but he might wish to respond to that point. Perhaps I have not foreseen the circumstances in which such a scenario might occur. Other than that, I simply want to say that the sentiment behind the amendment is absolutely right. We look forward to the Ministers response, and particularly to clarification about the amendments technical ability to achieve what I think the majority of the Committee wish to occur.

Richard Benyon: The only thing I can add to this debate, which has been good, is to tell the Minister that running through the Bill is a thread of localism, or the potential to encourage a more local approach to the management of fisheries. I think that the amendment is in that spirit, so I hope that the Minister will respond to it favourably.

Ann McKechin: Good morning, Mr. Gale.
This debate has seen many passions rise, and clearly we have several keen anglers in the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West. I was struck by some of his comments, particularly the fact that fish do not read mapspresumably they do not have satnavs either. I also noted his comments about the need for flexibility and localism, which were backed up by the hon. Member for Newbury, and the need to look at things on a case-by-case basis. A number of strong arguments have been presented.
The Bill provides clear rules for IFCAs, the Environment Agency and the MMO in relation to fisheries management. Clear rules aid the aims of transparency and responsibility, which have to be key components of the Bill. The Environment Agency will maintain lead responsibility for the management of freshwater and migratory species, while IFCAs will lead on marine species management and the MMO will carry out the fisheries management activity currently carried out by the Marine and Fisheries Agency, including enforcement of the common fisheries policy. That arrangement provides a clear division of responsibilities among the organisations, but we recognise the need to ensure that there is close co-operation at an operational level, which was very much supported by hon. Members. I was particularly interested in the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire about the existing operation in the Dee estuary. Both the MMO and the Environment Agency will have a statutory seat on each IFCA, and I know the agency is keen to be actively involved in committees.
The Bill also provides for cross-warranting of enforcement activity among the three organisations, building on existing successful cross-warranting arrangements. The Bill places a duty on IFCAs to co-operate with other relevant public authorities, which will include the MMO and the Environment Agency. Government guidance will also set out the need for IFCAs, the agency and the MMO to work closely together and that is likely to include memorandums of understanding. The model set out in the Bill will provide effective inshore fisheries management. However, some very constructive points have been made during the debate on the merit of providing additional flexibility. I recognise the value of providing such flexibility in terms of better regulation and more effective joined-up working.
We are not able to accept the amendment as worded. Arrangements for delegation need to be set out in much more detail than they are in the amendment and in a way that is consistent with the MMO delegation clauses. The hon. Member for St. Ives raised a good point about conflict. We would not agree to a delegation without the Secretary of States approval. As proposed new subsection (7) under the amendment currently stands, the Secretary of State would have the right to remove any body, but not to intervene in the delegation. The issue of conflict needs to be dealt with at the time of appointment, rather than when there is a review of any problem that may arise after that.
I accept that such a change could be useful in strengthening the future-proofing of part 6 of the Bill. I would like to reflect on the issues that have been raised and to consider whether we could make a change that takes into account the considerations of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. On that basis, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West to withdraw the amendment.

Martin Salter: This excellent debate has been an example of us doing what we came to Parliament to do: improving legislation. We started off with a fundamentally good Bill and we are trying to make it better. If I am receiving an indication from the Minister that this matter will definitely be brought back on Reportwords such as consider are not enoughto reflect the points made by hon. Members, particularly the issue teased out by the hon. Member for St. Ives about enforcing a delegation where one is needed for conservation reasons, I accept that the amendment as currently drafted is deficient, and therefore

Roger Gale: Order. It is not my position, place or desire to editorialise but, before the hon. Gentleman does what I think he is going to, I warn the Committee that Hansard cannot record a Minister nodding.

Martin Salter: Thank you, Mr. Gale.

Ann McKechin: I am grateful for your clarification, Mr. Gale. I am happy to confirm that we will consider the matter on Report.

Martin Salter: I think that that is a stronger consider. I am taking that as meaning that the matter will be brought back on Report. Would the Minister like to intervene on me to confirm?

Ann McKechin: I am happy to confirm.

Martin Salter: I visited the dentist earlier this week, and sometimes this is like pulling teeth. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 168 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 169 to 179 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14 agreed to.

Clauses 180 to 183 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 184

Power of Welsh Ministers in relation to fisheries in Wales

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2Duty on Welsh Ministers in relation to management of inshore fisheries
(1) In exercising their powers under this Act or other Sea Fisheries Acts, Welsh Ministers shall seek to ensure that the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in Wales and the Welsh Zone is carried out in a sustainable way.
(2) At intervals of no more than four calendar years, Welsh Ministers shall make a report to the National Assembly for Wales on how they have discharged their powers in accordance with subsection (1).
(3) The first report of this kind shall be made within four calendar years of the enactment of this Act.
(4) A report made under this section must include
(a) an assessment of the extent to which the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the Welsh Zone is carried out in a sustainable way;
(b) actions the Minister has taken in order to seek to ensure that the conservation objectives of marine conservation zones are furthered, insofar as these actions relate to fisheries management;
(c) actions the Minister will take in the light of the assessment provided in the report, in pursuance of the objective in subsection (1);
(d) any other matter relating to the management of sea fisheries resources that the Minister considers appropriate..
New clause 3Transfers of powers in relation to fisheries
In Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (c. 32) (Assembly Measures), in field 1 (agriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural development) insert
Matter 1.1A
Provision to confer a statutory duty upon Welsh Ministers in relation to the management of fisheries..
New clause 4Duties of the Welsh Ministers in relation to fisheries in Wales
(1) At regular intervals the Welsh Ministers shall report to the National Assembly for Wales on the way in which their powers pertaining to the management of sea fisheries resources have been discharged in accordance with the scheme produced under section 79 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (c.32), insofar as this applies to the management of the exploitation of sea fisheries resources.
(2) A report made under this section shall include
(a) an assessment of the extent to which the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in Welsh waters is carried out in a sustainable way;
(b) particulars of actions the Welsh Ministers have taken in order to seek to ensure that the conservation objectives of Marine Conservation Zones are furthered; insofar as these actions relate to fisheries management;
(c) particulars of actions the Welsh Ministers will take in the light of the assessment provided in the report;
(d) any other matter relating to the management of sea fisheries resources that the Welsh Ministers consider appropriate.
(3) In this section regular intervals means intervals of no longer than four years, with the first interval being measured from the date of enactment of this Act..

Roger Williams: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I seek your guidance on whether to start with issues arising from the clause stand part debate and then move on to the new clauses.

Roger Gale: It is the same debate, because the stand part debate embraces the new clauses. I called the hon. Gentleman first because his is the first name on the first new clause tabled. I am sure that he would wish to address both issues.

Roger Williams: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Gale. I would like to speak to a number of issues relating to clause 184 and the powers given to Welsh Ministers with regard to fisheries in Wales. They have, quite rightly, decided to form the IFCA in Wales. When we look at provisions in preceding clauses, it is not entirely clear whether they apply equally to Wales. Although Welsh Ministers have the power to introduce and confirm byelaws relating to fisheries, as I understand it they do not have the same powers as the Secretary of State regarding emergency byelaws. In clause 157, an IFCA has the power to impose an emergency byelaw if it believes that some element of the fishery system is exploiting a particular species, or a particular juvenile stage of that species. However, it is not clear whether that power falls to the Welsh IFCA, and therefore to the Welsh Ministers.
Under clause 157, an IFCA has the power to extend an emergency byelaw with the permission of the Secretary of State. My understanding is that the Secretary of State would not have any power to extend an emergency byelaw in Wales and, therefore, the power does not extend to Wales. I would like some clarification of that matter.
In the preceding clauses, definitions of particular issues are set out very clearly, but it is not entirely clear whether those definitions relate to Wales as well. For example, sea fisheries resources, exploitation, fishing communities, marine environmental matters and the marine environment are all defined, and that extends to those issues the power that an IFCA may have. It is not clear whether those definitions relate to the powers in Wales, so I should like some clarification of that as well.
In preceding clauses, a duty is placed on the Secretary of State to report on the sustainability of fisheries, on a four-yearly basis, as set out in the Bill. The hon. Member for Newbury has said that IFCAs have to report on an annual basis as well. There is, I accept, regular updating on the work of these very important bodies. However, there is no duty set out in the Bill for Welsh Ministers to report to the Welsh Assembly in a similar way. Elin Jones, the relevant Minister in the Welsh Assembly, has said that the Bill does not need to set out a duty for Welsh Ministers in that regard. They would do it naturally, because of their concern and their interest in these matters. However, I have tabled new clauses 2 and 3 to tease out the issues. They differ slightly because of the sensitivities and technicalities of the devolved settlement and the Government of Wales Acts 1998 and 2006.
New clause 2 imposes a duty on Welsh Ministers to report back to the Welsh Assembly. From my point of view, and that of my party, imposing duties from Westminster on a devolved Assembly is not within the spirit of the devolution settlement. We would prefer to give Welsh Ministers the power to determine how to carry out what we believe the responsibilities should be.
New clause 3 seeks to amend the Government of Wales Act 2006, which sets out which matters are devolved and reserved. It does that by listing fields that are subject to devolution, and matters that are specific elements in those fields. The new clause sets out a new matter within the field that includes agriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural development:
Provision to confer a statutory duty upon Welsh Ministers in relation to the management of fisheries.

Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Elin Jones, and I am sure that he has received the same letter as me, in which she states:
Following a recent meeting with the Countryside Council for Wales I have considered reporting requirements further and I will be making a commitment to report annually to the Assembly on the exercise of fisheries functions. I will be setting this out in a statement shortly.
Does that not mean that she accepts the regular reporting on the performance of the Welsh IFCAfor want of a better descriptionthat the hon. Gentleman and I, would like to see? Does that letter not confirm that everything the hon. Gentleman wants will be delivered by the Assembly Minister?

Roger Williams: I believe, as does the hon. Gentleman, that it would be within the spirit of the devolution settlement for the Minister to be able to take that forward. All we do in new clause 3 is set out a matter within the field, which gives the Minister an opportunity not only to report, but to carry out the functions that might be associated with her work, or that of future Ministers, as far as the IFCA is concerned. The new clause would make only a minor amendment to the 2006 Act, and would ensure that there was capacity in the Assembly, and in the Ministers powers, for the work to be carried out as well and as fully as possible.

David Jones: The hon. Gentleman says that new clause 3 would amount only to a minor amendment, but my reading of it is that it would confer primary legislative competence upon the Assembly. Does he suggest therefore that, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire has to say, the Minister does not have that power to create a duty upon herself?

Roger Williams: The hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in these matters, and I have listened to views that he has expressed in the Welsh Affairs Committee. The amendment to the Act attempts to ensure that the Welsh Minister has sufficient powers to carry out what the Secretary of State carries out in relation to the IFCAs in England. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agree that the Welsh Minister should have those powers to ensure that the capacity for sustainable fisheries in Wales is equivalent to that in England.

David Jones: I am not sure whether I want Welsh Ministers to have the powers. I and, I imagine, most members of the Committee, would like to see a positive duty imposed upon those Ministers. To return to my point, is the hon. Gentleman saying that in the absence of new clause 3, it would not be possible for the Welsh Minister to impose upon herself the duty that the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire has said that she intends to impose?

Roger Williams: The hon. Gentleman is straining at a gnat. The issue is that in taking up the IFCA powers in Wales, the Welsh Minister should have equivalent responsibilities to those of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in England. New clause 3 intends to tease from the Minister whether Welsh Ministers have the capacity and the competence to carry out in Wales functions that are equivalent to those that the Secretary of State has in England.
Although I have tabled two new clauses, new clause 3 is my preferred way forward. Will the Minister indicate whether the Government intend to go down that route on Report? That would enable the Welsh Minister to carry out her duties to the fullest degree to ensure that sustainable fisheries in Wales are as well supported as those in England.

Roger Gale: Before we proceed, may I remind the Committee that the issues under discussion are being taken together? I have no indication at this stage whether any of the new clauses will be moved formally when the time arrives. If any hon. Member wishes to move any of the new clauses, the Chair will need to know in good time.

David Jones: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I rise to speak to new clause 4, which I tabled with other members of the Committee, and to new clauses 2 and 3, which were tabled by the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire and for St. Ives.
The inshore fishing industry is of particular importance in Wales. According to some estimates, it accounts for some 60 per cent. of landings in Welsh ports. As we have heard, the Welsh Assembly Government have decided that they do not wish to follow the IFCA model that will prevail in England; they would rather follow a more centralised, in-house route that is of a pattern with their general approach to the Welsh tourism industry, for example, and to the Welsh Development Agency.
Clause 184 provides that Welsh Ministers shall have powers to make byelaws equivalent to the authority for an IFCA district, which possibly answers one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire.

Roger Williams: My point was not about byelaws, but about emergency byelaws, which can be implemented by IFCAs in special circumstances. It is not clear whether that power appertains to Wales.

David Jones: Doubtless, the Minister will respond to that point. The principal concern is that no corresponding duties are imposed upon Welsh Ministers in connection with the execution of their powers. That has been the subject of criticism from a number of bodies, including the Countryside Council for Wales, which is the Welsh Assembly Governments own adviser, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Wales Coastal and Maritime Partnership.
The Countryside Council For Wales takes the viewI think that it is rightthat the proposed Welsh regime fails to provide a sufficiently clear, transparent and robust inshore fisheries structure that gives the marine environment in Wales protection equivalent to that in England. It has advised of the need for the Bill to impose on Welsh Ministers further duties that are equivalent to those on IFCAs.
In particular, the council takes the viewI think that it is the right viewthat it is necessary to impose on Welsh Ministers a reporting duty equivalent to that in clause 178, under which the Secretary of State must lay a report about the conduct and operation of IFCAs at the end of every four-year period. The absence of such a duty was the subject of criticism by the Welsh Assemblys Sustainability Committee, which recommended that such a duty be imposed on Welsh Ministers.
As we have heard, the Welsh Minister for Rural Affairs says that she plans not to delegate fisheries responsibility to a third-party organisation, but to manage it in-house. She has said that there is no need for specific duties to be prescribed on issues for which Welsh Ministers are already ultimately responsible. She takes the view that mechanisms for reporting to the Assembly are already in place in normal Assembly business and standing orders. She therefore feels that having an additional requirement for Welsh Ministers with responsibility for fisheries to report to the Assembly annually or at other regular intervals would be unnecessary because that process already exists.

Nick Ainger: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the quote that I gave to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, in which the Welsh Minister clearly does accept the need to report annually to the Assembly. Did the hon. Gentleman actually receive the letter that I received? It makes it quite clear that she wants to report annually, and she will be making a statement to that effect.

David Jones: I have no doubt that that is the case. Nevertheless, I take the viewthis view is shared by others, including such persuasive bodies as the Countryside Council for Walesthat such a duty should be included in the Bill. I remind the Committee that, notwithstanding new clause 3, primary legislative competence in respect of fisheries is not devolved to the Welsh Assembly, nor is it intended to be so devolved.
I find it hard to see why the Government consider it appropriate to impose reporting duties on the Secretary of State in the English context, while imposing no such duties on Welsh Ministers in the Welsh context. I find it equally hard to understand why the Welsh Minister should resist such a duty being included in the Bill when she intends to pursue it in any event.

Roger Williams: The present Welsh Minister may well report regularly, but that places no duty on any Minister who takes up her post in the future.

David Jones: And that, of course, is the nub of the issue. The current Welsh Minister no doubt has admirable intentions, but that does not mean that she can determine the actions of any of her successors.
It is important that a duty be included in the Bill, and that view is shared by the Countryside Council for Wales, Wildlife Trusts Wales and similar bodies. Like us, they take the view that Welsh Ministers should report regularly to the Welsh Assembly. That would ensure that the Assembly scrutinised Welsh Ministers exercise of their powers in the same way as Parliament scrutinised Ministers exercise of their powers in the English context.
New clause 4, which I have drafted, is similar in spirit to new clause 2, which was drafted by the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire and for St. Ives. Its purpose is similar, save that new clause 4 relates to the Government of Wales Act 2006. Section 79 of that Act imposes general sustainability duties on the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Ministers. The obligation is that Welsh Ministers should create and keep under review a sustainable development scheme setting out how they propose, in the exercise of their functions, to promote sustainable development. It appears to be a neat solution to the issue by relating the sustainability obligations under the Bill to the obligations that are already in place as a matter of statute under the 2006 Act.
I should like to speak briefly on new clause 3 to which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has referred. It proposes to confer on the Welsh Assembly primary legislative competence in respect of the management of fisheries. The hon. Gentleman described it as minor amendment. With due respect, to confer primary responsibilities on a devolved body is a fairly significant step. Interestingly, the Welsh Minister who, as a member of Plaid Cymru, one would expect to welcome primary competence, has refused such a measure. In a letter dated 31 March to the chairman of the Assemblys Sustainability Committee she said:
The process of developing the Marine and Coastal Access Bill began in autumn 2005 which coincided with the development of the Better Governance for Wales White Paper.
That White Paper preceded the Government of Wales Act 2006. She continued:
The advice at the time to Ministers was that the existing devolved powers, together with the new powers to be created under the Bill for fisheries, were sufficiently comprehensive for Welsh Ministers to effectively manage Welsh fisheries and that specific Welsh clauses would be pursued, as required, in the Bill.
That is what has happened. The Minister continued:
It was not, therefore, felt necessary to seek legislative competence in this area.
I am content that my existing powers, plus the additional powers which the Marine and Coastal Access Bill provides, are sufficient for Welsh Ministers to effectively manage and enforce Welsh fisheries, in line with the Assembly Governments Fisheries Strategy,
I do not think that it is any business of this Committee on behalf of this Parliament to inflict primary legislative competence upon an unwilling devolved body. I would certainly resist that, but I would press most strongly that the duty to which I have referred should be placed in the Bill to balance the powers that are already created.

Huw Irranca-Davies: This has been a good debate. It has taken me back to my time as Under-Secretary of State for Wales, a role which my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire also filled admirably in his time in the Wales Office. In fact he took the Government of Wales Act 2006 through the House and got that balance right between the devolved interests and our reserved and retained interests. Curiously, the new clauses try to tease out the same sort of aspirations, but approach it from different angles. Let me deal with them in some detail.
New clause 2 would place a duty on Welsh Ministers to ensure that the exploitation of sea fisheries resources, which is more than merely managing fish, is carried out in a sustainable way. It would apply both in Wales and the new Welsh zone. New clauses 2 and 4 would place duties on Welsh Ministers to report to the National Assembly for Wales on their management of sea fisheries resources. That includes an assessment of the extent to which fisheries are carried out in a sustainable way and actions the Minister has taken to seek to ensure that the conservation objectives of MCZs are furthered and the actions the Minister takes in light of the assessment.
We are aware that the Welsh Fisheries Minister, Elin Jones, has written to Members because of the concerns expressed in the other place and in the Commons on Second Reading. As she sets out in her letter, mechanisms and arrangements for reporting to the Assembly are already in place, as has been mentioned. I shall expand on that a little. Those mechanisms are in place through normal Assembly business and standing orders. An additional requirement for Welsh Ministers with portfolio responsibilities for fisheries to report annually to the Assembly is unnecessary, as that process already exists. Welsh Ministers can already be held to account by fellow Assembly Members in the exercise of fisheries functions, either through Assembly questions, in correspondence, or in Committee and other meetings. In fact, Welsh Ministers are regularly questioned on the exercise of their fisheries functions.

David Jones: Do not the same arrangements also prevail in this Parliament? Why is it necessary for positive duties to be included in the Bill for England but not for Wales?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I shall come to that in a moment, because Welsh Ministers currently have quite a package of accountability, on which I shall expand, and I think that will deal with some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman and others. One issue is that there is a marked difference between Welsh Ministers accountability to the Assembly and the proposed accountability for IFCAs. Those are local authority committees, so to ensure accountability they will have to provide the Secretary of State with annual plans and reports, as we remarked earlier. In addition, the Secretary of State will have to produce a report for Parliament once every four years, on the conduct and operation of IFCAs. That will allow the Government to ensure that IFCAs are held fully accountable for carrying out their new duties.
The accountability for fisheries that already exists in the National Assembly will be extended to cover the additional responsibility with respect to inshore fisheries from April 2010. Therefore, an additional reporting duty is considered unnecessary for Welsh Ministers. Although I hesitate to keep using this phrase, as part of the project to deliver the new fisheries management system in Wales, a stakeholder advisory groupwhich I mention at the risk of annoying the hon. Member for Clwyd, Westhas been set up, comprising fisheries managers, local authorities, environmental interests and the NGOs. The advisory group has the task of providing advice to the project, and of designing a model for the delivery of local and national input into fisheries management. Welsh Ministers have asked the advisory group to design reporting requirements to seek to maintain transparency through that management; they have already asked it to take on that role.
I understand that the Wales Environment Link and, in particular, its constituent member the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Cymru, believe that there are not sufficient requirements on Welsh Ministers to act sustainably in the exercise of their fisheries functions, nor sufficient mechanisms for the relevant Welsh Minister to be held to account. However, as has been described already in the other place, here in Committee today and in the letter from the Welsh Fisheries Minister Elin Jones, that is not so
The Countryside Council for Wales has also provided a briefing note, which I am sure hon. Members have seen; I understand that since it was issued, CCW has met Elin Jones, who explained her position, as set out in the letter to hon. Members. I understand that it was in effect at that meeting that she made a commitment to report annually to the Assembly on the Welsh Ministers exercise of fisheries functions. Both CCW and WEL are fully involved in the project that I have described to deliver a new fisheries management and marine enforcement regime in Wales.
Last month, the Assembly Government launched their latest sustainable development scheme, which again confirmed that sustainability is part and parcel of their work. Fisheries are of course included in the scheme and, in line with the Wales fisheries strategy, which was launched last year, it commits to an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in Wales, with sustainability at its heart.
The success of devolution means that the management of sea fisheries and wider governance arrangements in Wales are different from those in England. I hope I have explained to the satisfaction of Opposition Members why their proposals are unnecessary in the Welsh context. Elin Jones says in her letter:
This Bill provides the framework powers for future fisheries management in Wales. Therefore, I now believe it is for the Welsh Assembly Government to work with its partners to determine how Welsh Ministers should exercise these new powers.
I concur fully with that, and she is getting on with it nownot waiting for the Bill to pass.

David Jones: No one doubts Welsh Ministers intentions, as I said earlier, but how does the Minister deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire? Despite the best intentions of Elin Jones, she cannot bind her successors actions.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In fact, in response to the pertinent issues raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, not least on definitions, I can clarify that the definitions referred to in the Bill are equally applicable to Welsh Ministers when making legislation under clause 184, as they are to IFCAs when making byelaws under clause 155. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance that that is correct.

Roger Williams: My point was that clause 157, as I understand it, specifically gives IFCAs in England the right to make emergency byelaws, which can be extended up to 12 monthseven longer with the written permission of the Secretary of State. Obviously, we would not want the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to write little notes to the Welsh Assembly about emergency byelaws.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I was coming to that point and I can clarify the matter. The Welsh Assembly Government will not be able to make emergency byelaws as IFCAs can; the hon. Gentleman is right in his interpretation. However, through their own powers, Welsh Ministers can create emergency orders that can be enacted just as quickly as emergency byelaws, so we have explored the matter already. In addition, we envisage very few examples of an emergency byelaw needing to be employed, the key being that the matter could not have been reasonably foreseen. The vast majority of fisheries issues requiring byelaws do not fall into that category. Just to reiterate, while Welsh Ministers do not have the power to make emergency byelaws as IFCAs can, they have the power to make emergency orders, which can be created as fast as emergency byelaws.

Roger Williams: To tease out the detail on this, as I understand it, the Welsh Assemblys powers can be negatived in the Assembly, and can only be put in place for 40 days.

David Jones: Subject to renewal.

Roger Williams: Yes, whereas the powers of English IFCAs can be in place for 12 months. It is justified to look at the issue again to see whether that power should be applicable to the Welsh Assembly.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I understand the hon. Gentlemans point but the Welsh Assembly Government Ministers are able, within their current powers, to deal with a genuine emergency situation that would require an urgent and rapid response. If there was a willingness to extend or renew the order, and take it further than the 40 days, that is within their power. The nature of some of these eventualities means that, first, measures are immediate, given their necessity, and secondly, they could be temporary to stop something that is happening right at that moment. The powers exist, but in a different form from the measures in the Bill.

David Jones: The problem that the Countryside Council for Wales identified is that although there is a power to make an order, it is subject to annulment within 40 days of being laid. The council makes the fair point that although it is possible in Wales to put in place an order instantlyone that comes into force from the day on which it is laidit can be subsequently annulled within 40 days, that is not what prevails in England.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The approach is different, but it can have the same effect. Even though the order can be annulled after it is laid, if it is laid in response to a genuine emergencysuch a thing would be dealt with through a byelaw for an English IFCAwhether in Cardigan bay or elsewhere, the effect is the same: it stops the activity and defers the impact of the damage. However, I fully understand that the mechanism is different. We are not trying to force on Welsh Assembly Government Ministers an identikit version of how to deal with those eventualities, but those Ministers will have the power to deal with them.

David Jones: The difficulty is that we are effectively dealing with the problem for up to 12 months in the English context but, in the Welsh context, a measure is potentially subject to annulment within 40 days. The Minister must agree that that situation is less satisfactory.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Secretary of State also has the ability to remove an emergency byelaw, so even though such a measure can be laid for up to 12 months, the Secretary of State may decide that it is no longer required. I think that we might be dancing around this subject when both approachesemergency byelaws under the IFCAs, and the laying of an order in the Welsh Assembly Governmentcan achieve the same purpose. We are trying to reach a point at which the same effect can be achieved when we face immediate potential damage either within a marine conservation area or a wider sea area, and a point at which the approach in the Bill, following consultation and agreement with the Welsh Assembly Government, respects both where we are on devolution and the wishes of the Welsh Assembly Government, which it does. Although the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about annulment, the Secretary of State can decide to revoke an emergency byelaw.

David Jones: I hope that the Minister will forgive me, but he is not respecting the will of the Welsh Assembly. He is respecting the wishes of Welsh Ministers, who are an Executive body.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to undermine either the power of the great democratic institution that is the Welsh Assembly Government, or the intent of the Welsh Assembly Government Minister, seriously to deliver on what is in the Bill and to strike the right balance between the framework powers that we can give the Welsh Assembly Government to get on with this, in consultation with all the organisations, agencies and individuals on the ground, and bringing forward things that are fit for purpose in Wales.
Mr. Williamsrose

Huw Irranca-Davies: I want to make some progress on new clause 3, but I will give way.

Roger Williams: The Minister is very kind. We raised the point that the current Minister in the Welsh Assembly has committed herself to reporting annually, but she is unable to commit other Ministers in that post in the future. Is the Minister aware that it lies within the competence of the Welsh Assembly to put that commitment in either its standing orders or some other legislative process?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes indeed. The hon. Gentleman goes to the heart of an aspect of our debate. It is completely within the competence of the Welsh Assembly Government Minister to introduce a set of standing orders on the way in which this should be carried forward ad infinitum, in the same way that any future Government in this place can decide, should they want to, to change how they deal with the situation. They would do so in the full glare of transparency and publicity. In the same way, Welsh Assembly Government Ministers, who are held democratically accountable, can introduce their own long-term decisions on how they would deal with this. We therefore come to the essence of the question: do we trust the Welsh Assembly Government to get on with this and deliver on the aspects that are within their power? The current Ministers intent is clear. Elin Jones will undoubtedly read our debate with some interest. She will want to reflect on how to take some of the matters forward, but she is not waiting for the Bill to come out of Committee, because she is already working on the transition towards her own powers.
Turing to new clause 3[Interruption.] I feel as if I have entered the TARDIS and flown back to my days in the Wales Office to re-do the Government of Wales Bill. The new clause would amend schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 by inserting a matter in field 1 in respect of fisheries. The measure would enable the National Assembly for Wales to legislate to impose statutory duties on Welsh Ministers in relation to the management of fisheries in Wales.
If I have not done so already, I wish to make it clear that the Government are fully committed to devolution in Wales and to enhancing the legislative competence of the National Assembly in ways that are consistent with our current settlement. I am sure that hon. Members agree that our track record proves just that. We have made provision in part 2 of the Bill to meet the Assembly Governments request for a Welsh fisheries zone in the offshore area, thus giving Wales parity with Scotland and Northern Ireland. We have taken account throughout the Bill of the need to ensure that provisions are applicable in the Welsh context and that Welsh Ministers will become the marine planning authority and the licensing authority for the waters around Wales.
I cannot agree to the new clause. Conferring full law-making powers on the Assembly is not an exercise that we should do lightly, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire knows, and certainly not at this late stage in the passage of the Bill. It would be a major step, not a tinkering. It should be considered carefully in a broader context of fisheries management as a whole, rather through amendment at this late stage. I hope that I have explained that there is a robust framework in place prescribing how Welsh Ministers should exercise their fisheries functions, and that framework is being enhanced by the Bill. Welsh Ministers are already fully accountable for their actions to the democratically elected Assembly. There is therefore no reason for the proposed new clause and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Roger Gale: Order. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire looks as though he is about to rise to his feet. He cannot withdraw the new clause because it has not been moved. The Question before the Committee is on clause stand part. If the hon. Gentleman has further things he wishes to say, I will call him, should he catch my eye. I have had no indication that any of the proposed new clauses are to be put to a vote, and I want to be absolutely clear what we are doing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 184 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 185 to 188 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 189

Size limits for sea fish

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Martin Salter: I apologise to the Minister for not giving him direct notice of my point. The clause addresses sea fish size limits, and it would be remiss of me if I did not make a comment. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Broxbourne is not hereor perhaps notas he gets similarly agitated about this.
I want to press the Minister on the promised review of his predecessors quite disgraceful decision not to implement the bass minimum landing size limit. The purpose of the Bill is to improve the environment for all species of fish and life forms around our coasts. The bass is an extremely valuable recreational fish. The recreational value of our bass fishery has not been assessed, but is pretty serious. I know the hon. Member for Newbury is keen to catch bass on the fly and I am quite happy to stick hooks in them; anyhow, they are superb fish.
Although the last Fisheries Minister but one made a solemn promise to implement a bass management plan, which involved raising the bass minimum landing size from the current 36 cma ridiculous limit given that he optimum spawning size for bass is around 40 to 42 cmall 750,000 recreational sea anglers, who are all registered voters, were disappointed to say the least by the Ministers predecessors subsequent decision. The Minister is showing himself to be very flexible and, at my behest, he met interested parties from the world of recreational sea angling. I am giving him the opportunity to say when he plans to review his predecessors decision. We were promised a review many months ago. I know that his officials would like to kick it into the long grass, but I can assure him that while there is breath in my body, that will not happen.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In response to a good and timely reminder of the obligation that I made when I had a very good meeting with my hon. Friend and the Angling Trust in Portcullis House, I will make good on my commitment to review the minimum landing size for bass at the earliest possible opportunity. I have slightly lost sight of it during our proceedings in Committee, so I cannot give a date. However, I am more than happy to discuss the issue further with my hon. Friend to make a good on my clear statement that I would review the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Andrew George: This is an important issue. Will the Minister confirm my reading of the Bill, which is that IFCAs will have the power to introduce byelaws to increase the minimum landing size in their own districts, as many authorities have done in the six-mile zone in the current districts? That applies to byelaws dealing not only with minimum landing sizes for a whole range of fish species, but with various lobsters, and a number of other matters that aid the conservation of fisheries.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. The hon. Gentlemans interpretation is quite right. There is flexibility in the Bill to do what he says.
To reiterate, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West raised the fundamental issue of the review of the minimum landing size of bass, and he has rightly been persistent in pursuing it. I will speak to my officials and get back to him on the earliest date for a review of the issue.

Martin Salter: May I remind the Minister that I shall be standing down at the next election, so I would appreciate it if the review took place between now and next April?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. The point is well made and noted. I really do hope to deliver before my hon. Friend stands down.

Andrew George: The issue of the minimum landing size of bass has been rightly raised, and it affects many inshore fisheries areas. Indeed, it also affects to offshore areas beyond the 12-mile limit, although I know that the serious issues raised in that respect are not part of this debate. We have also mentioned the regulations that IFCAs will operate within and IFCAs ability to introduce not only their own byelaws to protect the fishing resource, but variations in landing size, which will, one hopes, increase rather than decrease landing size.
In my intervention a moment agoI know that the Minister was seeking inspiration from his civil servants and that he may not have heard meI said that other important issues are pertinent to the conservation of fishing stock, and they relate not only to the minimum landing size, but to the protection of spawning stock.
I have mentioned berried lobsters, and the Cornwall sea fisheries committee has been attempting for some time to introduce measures not only to V-notch lobsters, which should be protected because they are immature, but to ensure that berried lobsters are equally protected. Where byelaws are required to protect such lobsters and other sea creatures that are targeted by the fishing industry, I hope that the Minister will give the Committee some reassurance that IFCAs will have the power to introduce measures to protect stock.

Martin Salter: I do not disagree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but does he recognise that there is limited value, particularly with species such as bass and other highly mobile fish, in having locally based size limits? Clearly, the stocks will move around.

Andrew George: I entirely accept that point, but I am concentrating primarily on shellfish. I support the criticism that the hon. Gentleman has been makinghence my comment about ensuring that there is a reference to regulations that go beyond the six-mile limit. As far as nationally set minimum landing sizes are concerned, I certainly hope that future Secretaries of State will err on the side of increasing those beyond their current size and allowing IFCAs to introduce their own byelaws to raise further those standards and the minimum landing sizes beyond the nationally set limits.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I clarify that the clause allows for orders to be made to set a maximum size limit or a size range outside which no fish may be landed, sold or carried. It updates the conservation powers currently available to Ministers and provides a potentially valuable tool to aid the conservation of certain species of fish. For example, a maximum size limit or a size range could be a more effective technical conservation tool for some species, such as elasmobranchii, than a minimum size limit by ensuring that the larger, more fecund specimens are returned to the sea when caught. IFCAs will certainly be able to increase the minimum landing size to suit local circumstances, a point made by both hon. Gentlemen. I can offer the assurances the hon. Member for St. Ives is seeking: the provision allows flexibility and will aid the conservation of certain species.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 189 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 190 to 196 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 15 agreed to.

Clause 197

Power to make orders as to fisheries for shellfish

Huw Irranca-Davies: I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 197, page 124, leave out from beginning of line 11 to subsection in line 12 and insert
(1) Section 1 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 (c. 83) (power to make orders as to fisheries for shellfish) is amended as set out in subsections (1A) and (1B).
(1A) In.

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 57.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 57 and 58.
Government new clause 5Variation etc of orders as a result of development.
Government amendment 62.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Part 7 makes changes to the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967, under which applications can be made for several and regulating orders that allow the cultivation of shellfish and the regulation of wild shellfisheries. The changes that we hope to make will reduce the cost and burden of applying for several or regulating orders and ensure that they can be used effectively. It will achieve that in part by removing the current criteria under which public inquiries are triggered during application.
Several orders essentially grant an exclusive right to develop a private fishery to the grantee, either an individual or a company. Regulating orders either impose restrictions or make regulations regarding the dredging, fishing and taking of shellfish specified in the order. Regulating orders also allow grantees to introduce quotas for shellfish stocks and a system of licensing to restrict the number of persons authorised to exploit the fishery. The orders offer an attractive and sustainable alternative to the uncertainties of fishing for wild stocks and provide for the improved management of shellfisheries.
In the other place, Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Baroness Wilcox spoke passionately about the shellfish industry and the problems that it faces as a consequence of a long-running court case in the Menai strait, which hon. Members will be aware of. The Government listened carefully to their concerns on the Floor of that House and I have met both Baronesses separately to discuss their concerns. My noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath indicated on Report that the Government would be prepared to bring forward amendments to the Bill in this House, and we are trying to make good on that commitment today. Government amendments 56 to 58, 62 and new clause 5 are intended to deliver on that commitment and resolve the current impasse on the granting of new shellfish orders, which has resulted from the Menai strait court case. In simple terms, the Crown is no longer consenting under the present system to any orders where its land is concerned, and shellfish development opportunities are being lost.
All sides agree that the present situation simply cannot continue. I pay tribute to my officials at this point, because they have worked extremely hard to come up with proposals that offer a balance between the needs of shellfisheries and the rights of landowners. I genuinely believe that these amendments and new clause offer the very best solution to shellfishermen and landowners. The Government are committed to ensuring that shellfisheries have a viable future and this is our opportunity to make that commitment a reality.
I am aware that some aspects of these amendments are technical. With your permission, Mr. Gale, I shall discuss them at some length, because they are detailed. As a package, they deliver what the Government intended to do and what we promised in the other place.

Andrew George: Before the Minister goes into the detail of these amendments, which I of course look forward to hearing, will he confirm that his Department gave the Shellfish Association of Great Britain just two hours to comment on these proposals before they were due to be tabled last week? Clearly, the SAGB is a very important body to be consulted, because it shared the Governments concern on this issue. He is about to go into a lot of detail on these amendments, but to give an important stakeholderI hope that the hon. Member for Newbury does not mind my using that termonly two hours in which to comment on them was clearly insufficient. I know that the SAGB was not particularly happy about that.

Huw Irranca-Davies: No. I can confirm that, as a result of the debate in the other place and the previous discussions that we in DEFRA have had over quite some period on the impasse, the first occasion that this set of proposals was discussed with the shellfisheries was on 15 June. The shellfisheries were not informed of the amendments, but the principles underpinning our approach were discussed on 15 June.
Again, I pay tribute to the officials who worked very hard to turn those proposals, through discussion with stakeholders, into the reality of an amendment. I suspect that that is probably why the SAGB is saying that it had limited time to look at the detail of the amendments, and I sympathise with it on that. However, the thrust and the fundamentals of what we are discussing here have been on the table for some time. In fact, aspects of this issue were not only debated in the other place but accepted by their lordships as being a good way to move forward.

Richard Benyon: That may be the case but the Minister must recognise that there is a widespread feeling of growing concern across shellfisheries that we are about to take decisions today that will have a fundamental effect on the future of their businesses. A growing number of shellfisheries are aware that even larger numbers of shellfisheries are as yet unaware of the implications of these amendments and they would like the opportunity to consult the Government and inform Ministers about the effect of these amendments on their particular shellfisheries.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I reiterate that this is not a new problem. The issues that arose out of the Menai strait case have been articulated loudly and publicly. Furthermore, our Department and the Welsh Assembly Government have been engaged with all stakeholders for quite some time. The point that we have come to today in this Committee is that we have a package of amendments that might not have been subject to detailed scrutiny by stakeholders during the three-month consultation period, or whatever, but the fundamentals of what we are debating today have been aired in many different contexts.
Therefore, we have the opportunity herewe do not often have a legislative vehicle that allows us to take such an opportunityto put through a package of measures. I will discuss the detail of the amendments, which may give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he is looking for that this is the right package that will give the certainty to shellfisheries as a whole across the UK that there is a way forward, to get those consents up and running again and to give shellfisheries the long-term certainty that they can invest in sustainable shellfishing around the UK. I will explain how the concerns of shellfisheries will be addressed.
Government amendments 56, 57 and 62 amend the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 to remove the need for consent of the Crown estate or the duchies to be given before an order affecting any part of the sea shore that is owned by them can be granted. Removing that requirement will give the Secretary of State the power to grant shellfish orders without Crown consent.

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Four oclock.